Aside from George I, what monarch had the lowest ranking in the line of succession at birth but still became king/queen?

[u/ryuumonogatari]

I know George I was 44th in the line of succession before succeeding Anne for being the most senior protestant in line, so he probably holds the record for biggest “jump” in the succession. That being said, what are some examples of other kings/queens who were born considerably low in the line, with their chance of becoming monarch being beyond unlikely, but still somehow ended up on the throne anyways, through successive deaths, change in succession law, etc.?

[u/squiggyfm]

How far down was Henry VII?

[u/PineBNorth85 → u/squiggyfm]

If he didn't have an army he probably wouldn't have been on the list at all.

[u/SpacePatrician → u/PineBNorth85]

At least he would have been on some Lancastrians' lists. He was literally the last card they had to play. If he had failed, maybe I can't even guess who they would have turned to.

The French definitely didn't have him on the list, even with an army, and with their money. For them, he was like a Powerball ticket that by some miracle was lucky enough to get all the numbers. I believe everyone in continental Europe was shocked by Bosworth Field.

[u/magolding22 → u/SpacePatrician]

Actually there were the King of Portuagal and the Queen of Castile who were descended from a sister and a half sister of King Henry IV. At least they were descended by legitimate birth all the way.

And there were the descendants of the illegitimate children of the younger sons of KIng Henry IV. They were actually descended from the first Lancastrian King, even though of illegitimate birth.

Adn there were the Beaufort family, descended from a half brother of Henry IV. The half brother was illegitimate until his parents married and he was officially decreed legitimate. But ther was some doubt whether that legitimation made him elibible for the throne.

Of course the last two agnatic (through male descent only) male Beauforts were killed in 1471.

But Charles Somerset was an illegitimate son of a male Beaufort and according to Wikipedia he was legitiamted (date not mentioned). Charels Somerset was later made Earl of Worcester and was the ancestor of the Dukes of Beufort.

Both sides in the Wars of the Roses agreed that the throne should only pass through and to persons of legitimate birth.

The Lancastrians claimed that the throne should pass by legitimate agnatic primogeniture.

The Yorkists claimed that the throne should pass by legitimate male preference primogeniture.

In the reign of Henry VI he was the rightful king according to agnatic primogeniture, and Richard Duke of York was Henry VI's heir by agnatic primogentirue. Richard Duke of York was also the rightful king by male preference primogeniture, Sio Richard was either already the rightful king or else the heir to throne, and could expect that he or his heir would become king.

And then Henry VI had a son and heir Edward, and the stage was set for the Wars of the Roses.

One) The monarchs of Portugal and Castile were descended from John of Gaunt legitimately, but was through females, and some people might claim that foreign monarchs shouldn't become monarchs of England. A few generations later Emperor Charles V was descended from the Castilian and Portuguese monarchs, and some people said he had a better claim to the English throne than King Henry VIII.

Two) There were also English nobles descended from John of Gaunt through sisters of Henry IV.

The Beauforts were descended from John of Gaunt and a half brother of Henry IV in the agnatic line. But they were of illegitimate but legitimated birth and so might not be eligible for the crown.

Three) Henry Tudor was the heir of the Beauforts by male preference primogeniture, which was the wrong inhertiance rule for the Lancstrians.

Four) Charless Somerset was the heir of the Beauforts by agnatic primogeniture, the proper Lancastrian rule, but was descended from John of Gaunt through two illegittmate births which were legitimated. Was he eligible to inherit the crown?

Five) And there were illgeitimate chlidren of younger sons of Henry IV and their descendnats. And as far as I know none of them were ever legitiamted.

[u/magolding22 → u/magolding22]

continued

Six) King Edward IV was the rightful king by male preference primogeniture and after 1471 also the rightful king by agnatic primogeniture, but any Lancastrian die hards weren't going to accept him andhis heirs.

After 1485, the only male Plantagent of legitimate birth left alive was Edward Earl of Warwick (1475-1499) who was the Plantagent heir by agnatic primogeniture, while Elizabeth of York was the Plantagenet heiress by male preerence primogeniture. So the Lancastrians could have considered Edward to be the Lancastrian heir, but Henry VII who sort of had a Lancastrian claim was already king by then.

So after Prince Edward and King Henry VI were killed in 1471, there sere several possible Lancastrian Heirs, but none of them satisified all four necessary qualifications.

One) being male and descended from King Edward III by agnatic primogentirue.

Two) being descended from King Edward III thorugh legitimate birth in each and every generation. Unless legitimation counted as being of legitimate birth.

Three) not being identical with the Yorkist heir.

Frour) being still alive.

[u/SpacePatrician → u/magolding22]

And Five) having any means (army and money) to press a claim. Nobody other than Henry of Richmond was going to get any meaningful support from either the nobles or the bankers in 1485. The Lancastrian project was just seen as a bad investment at that point.

[u/TheoryKing04 → u/magolding22]

Actually it was quite explicit. The descendants of John of Gaunt and Katherine Swynford were explicitly barred from the succession, even though they were legitimized.

So Henry VII’s only legitimate royal blood that would actually put him in line for the throne (prior to him taking it) is from Catherine of Valois, who descends from Henry III via his daughter Beatrice.

[u/Mundane_Locksmith_56 → u/TheoryKing04]

It wasn’t, Henry IV added that in later on when he became king. John of Gaunt had already asked the Pope to legitimise the Beaufort’s through a papal bull and this was later enshrined in an act of Parliament by Richard II. I think John had them legitimised three times.

I personally think the only reason Henry barred them from the line of succession was because he had four healthy living sons and didn’t even consider that they would only produce 3 children between them, 2 of whom were illegitimate and that one legitimate.

John of Gaunt’s second daughter Elizabeth had numerous descendent’s who were also descended from Richard II’s half brother John Holland.

You had the Percy’s, Neville’s, Beaufort’s, Courtney’s, the Stafford’s, Bouchiers, etc… and then they all started intermarrying with each other to complicate matters and nearly all of them their descendants end up being descended from the Beaufort’s and Neville’s so technically of the Beaufort’s are barred from the line of succession so was everyone including Richard Duke of Yorks heirs who were also descended from Cecily Neville and her mother Joan Beaufort.

So yes, be interesting to see a line of succession after the Lancaster and York heirs.

[u/magolding22 → u/Mundane_Locksmith_56]

Being descended from the Beauforts didn't bar someone from the throne if they also had a legitimate line of descent from a previous king. Richaed Duke of York's wife Cecily Nevellie could not have transmitte a claim to the throne via the BEauforts to his children, But Richard hismelf had two liness of descent from Edward III, throrugh his father Richard was a great grandson of Edward III and thorugh his mother Richard was a great great great grandsonof Richard III.

[u/TheoryKing04 → u/magolding22]

This, pretty much. It’s always why the Royal Marriages Act is still partially in force. Are most of the people who would need to ask descendants of princesses who married outside of the royal family and their descendants? Yes. But even under the amended rules, the people who still need permission are still children and grandchildren of the sovereign and that’s the actually relevant portion.

[u/magolding22 → u/TheoryKing04]

That would have to be by male preference primogeniture and not agnatic primogeniture since both Catherine and and beatrice were female. So to calculate how many people were ahead of Henry /Tudor in the line of succession in a specific year, like 1471 or 1485, one would have to count all the living descendants of King Edward III, all the living descendants of KIng Edward II, all the living descendants of King Edward I, and all the living descendants of younger sons of King Henry III.

Margaret, daughter of King Henry III, and older sister of Beatrice, had no living descenandts after 1290. Making Beatrice the oldest daughter with living descendants. Catherine of France was the daugher of KIng Charles VI whose mother's mother's mother's mother's mother was Beatrice of England. And for each of those marriages sons would have precedence over daughters, and any older sons would have precedence ofver the one ancestral to Catharine.

Catherine's brother Charles VII of France and his descendants were ahead of Catharine, And the descendants of Catherin's older sister Jeanne were ahead of the descendants of Catherine including Henry Tudor in the line of succession to England.

It is no wonder you didn't count all the people ahead of Henry Tudor.

[u/TheoryKing04 → u/magolding22]

The claims to the throne did not operate on agnatic primogeniture. Even if she didn’t sit the throne, a claim to the throne had already been transmitted through a woman, namely Empress Matilda. Since Henry was a man that wouldn’t be an issue for him. It also doesn’t change the fact that Henry IV wasn’t actually first in line for the throne after Richard II anyway.

[u/Tough-Industry-2730 → u/SpacePatrician]

He was on the list only because he was the only remotely Lancaster left standing. Being a military coward paid dividends for him. Also people still were really hostile to the Owen Tudor /Catherine of Valois marriage (some considered it ineffective/null).

[u/The_Falcon_Knight → u/squiggyfm]

Legally, he wasn't even on it. His claim did come from John of Gaunt, but through his illegitimate Beaufort children, who (though legitimised) were barred from any succession rights to the crown by an act of Parliament.

[u/Accurate_Rooster6039 → u/squiggyfm]

Was the line of succession even a thing back then?

[u/squiggyfm → u/Accurate_Rooster6039]

I don’t know how far they went but male primogeniture was established by this point.

[u/itstimegeez → u/Accurate_Rooster6039]

Not as set in stone like it is today but it was more or less there. Most people alive at the time considered Elizabeth to be the heir even with her uncle declaring her and her siblings illegitimate. Henry VII was definitely not on it because he descended from a line that was barred from the succession.

[u/Accurate_Rooster6039 → u/itstimegeez]

Yeah, the immediate line of succession. But what about those further down the line?

[u/midnightsiren182 → u/squiggyfm]

This was honestly my first thought

[u/Tough-Industry-2730 → u/squiggyfm]

He wasn’t really on the list. Claim was from an undistinguished and illegitimate line combined with the scandalous remarriage of Henry Vs widow (which is where Tudor came from). Even he didn’t try to claim inheritance by right. He claimed by conquest.

[u/GoldfishFromTatooine]

George II too, he was born in 1683 when Charles II was still king. So even further down than George I.

[u/DrunkOnRedCordial → u/GoldfishFromTatooine]

Wow, that sounds like a top contender!

[u/Tardisgoesfast → u/GoldfishFromTatooine]

What about George VI?

[u/StudentAf191007 → u/Tardisgoesfast]

George VI was fourth in line at birth and second in line ever since his father became king. He was third in line while Edward VII was king. And ofc he was first in line after Edward VIII became king. So he definitely wasn’t even near the “lowest ranking” royal to become a monarch, or even one of the lowest ranking.

[u/Tough-Industry-2730 → u/StudentAf191007]

Fourth in line but his elder brother was unmarried and had no children and it was thought/ known that he could not produce children. Maybe/likekt.

[u/StudentAf191007 → u/Tough-Industry-2730]

Yes he was very likely to ascend the throne by the time Edward reached proper adulthood (vs young adulthood - say it became concerning in the early 30s) because it became very clear he had no interest in doing his duty. I would say during the time he was fourth in line, at his birth during Queen Victoria’s reign, he wasn’t considered likely maybe but it was definitely possible as he was the spare of the heir’s heir and many times spares have become King.

[u/LibrarianThick3821 → u/StudentAf191007]

Good points all. But I was also referring to the fairly strong rumor/speculation that Edward, due to a late bout of mumps, was considered unable to produce children.

[u/Belle_TainSummer]

William I, he wasn't even in it at all.

[u/susandeyvyjones → u/Belle_TainSummer]

Not true! I’ve seen the Bayeux Tapestry! Edward the Confessor promised! This is Godwinson propaganda!

[u/Septemvile → u/susandeyvyjones]

This is Godwinson propaganda!

This but unironically.

[u/AppleJoost → u/susandeyvyjones]

Isn't history written by the victors?

[u/susandeyvyjones → u/AppleJoost]

Not really. The chronicles were written with a pro Harold bias.

[u/tootiredforthisshit1 → u/susandeyvyjones]

What chronicles are you referring to? The Bayeux tapestry was commissioned by William I/conquerers brother wasn’t it?

[u/susandeyvyjones → u/tootiredforthisshit1]

Yeah, the tapestry is not a chronicle.

ETA: Sorry, posted too soon. The Anglo-Saxon chronicle was edited after the conquest to be more favorable to Harold.

[u/Yeoman1877]

Richard III as the fourth son of a man not king must be up there.

[u/Life-Cantaloupe-3184 → u/Yeoman1877]

And in the normal course of things, Richard’s nieces and nephews from his older brothers should have outranked his own claim to the throne. George, Duke of Clarence’s children having their claims to the throne barred due to the attainder against him and Richard speed running things by having all of Edward IV’s children declared illegitimate really made it easier for him to go “I’m the rightful king now.”

[u/squiggyfm → u/Yeoman1877]

Man, that whole century was just "people that should not have been king for one reason or another".

[u/Burkeintosh → u/squiggyfm]

Conquest - it’s a heck of a drug

[u/HidaTetsuko]

William IV. Third son and Princess Charlotte had to die too

[u/Scf9009 → u/HidaTetsuko]

And Victoria. At the time of her birth, it wasn’t a guarantee her older uncles wouldn’t have children (Frederick or George’s wives could have died and they would have remarried, or William and Adelaide could easily have had a child that lived, theoretically). Plus, no one knew her father would die so quickly, so she could have theoretically had a younger brother.

[u/DrunkOnRedCordial → u/Scf9009]

Then again, she was specifically brought into being because they were missing a generation of legitimate heirs. George was out, although William could have had a child who superseded her.

[u/Scf9009 → u/DrunkOnRedCordial]

Or a younger brother, since I’m speaking from the moment of her birth.

And men can still father children in this 60s, which is why I added the “wife died and remarried” case.

[u/TigerBelmont → u/Scf9009]

William and Adelaide did have children, but they died very young.

[u/Scf9009 → u/TigerBelmont]

I’ll update. Thank you!

[u/HidaTetsuko → u/Scf9009]

Doesn’t work like that. George would have had to sleep with Caroline and he couldn’t even be in the same room as her. Frederick was more possible may be

[u/Scf9009 → u/HidaTetsuko]

Which is why I said George’s wife could have died and he could have remarried. It absolutely works like that in those cases.

For Frederick’s wife the issue was age, which is why I had that same caveat about remarrying.

[u/susybbB]

What about Stephen?

[u/CheruthCutestory → u/susybbB]

Not even first, or second, in line in his immediate family never mind in total

[u/Alt_Historian_3001 → u/susybbB]

As another commenter said, the line wasn't really established, but going by what I know about succession, he'd still be as close as 6th in line to the throne at his birth (with his uncle William Rufus as King, and himself coming behind Robert Curthose, Henry Beauclerc, and his older brothers). At the time of his ascension to the throne, he would probably be counted as only behind Matilda (based on Henry I's wishes), her two living sons, his older brother Theobald, and Theobald's three living sons by my estimation, which puts him at 8th.

[u/The_Falcon_Knight → u/susybbB]

He was actually pretty high tbh. Most of William the Conqueror's children didn't have kids of their own. At the time Stephen was born, his mother Adela was the only one of her siblings with kids. So she only people ahead of Stephen were the future Henry I and his 2 older brothers.

[u/PineBNorth85 → u/susybbB]

There wasn't really a formal line yet at that point.

[u/ttown2011]

I mean… Sweyn

[u/JamesHenry627]

Henry VII did have some ties to the Plantagenet line. Being a descendant of Edward III through the legitimized male line of John of Gaunt though that placed him far below Gaunt's other descendants and the Yorks who had male preference primogeniture.

[u/rashtrakut]

Since this is a list of people at the time or their birth

Alfred the Great (5th son)

Sweyn

Harold Godwinson at birth nobody probably thought he would be king

William I

Stephen

The future Louis VIII of France

Edward IV (now there is an argument he was not that far off given that when he was born Henry VI had no sons, Humphrey was childless and the Beauforts by law were excluded from the succession)...Richard of York was the next in line by primogeniture

Richard III (now he was much further down with 3 older brothers but Humphrey was dead by then)

Henry VII

George I at birth the most unlikely to succeed without seizing it by force after Harold Godwinson

William IV and Victoria were not that far off at birth

[u/TigerBelmont → u/rashtrakut]

Alfred is a different case. The Wessex kingship didn’t automatically go from father to soon. There was a pool of aethlings (sons brothers and nephews of the king) that were eligible.

[u/Yolandi2802 → u/rashtrakut]

Dude. Do you not believe in punctuation?

[u/rashtrakut → u/Yolandi2802]

Should be more readable now

[u/rashtrakut → u/Yolandi2802]

I typed it up as separate lines. The app smushed them together

[u/Winter-Vegetable7792]

Henry IV is up there

[u/t0mless]

At the time of their births, Alfred the Great, John, and David I come to mind. David is especially impressive since he was the youngest of six sons.

You could also maybe count John Balliol and Robert the Bruce, since they were distant cousins to Alexander III and only obtained the crown because of the succession crisis and later Wars of Independence.

[u/magolding22 → u/t0mless]

The competition for the Crown of Scotland showed that John Balliol was the heir by male preference primogeniture. So he and his heirs are the rightful genealogical heirs of the house of Dunkeld of Scotland and the House of Wessex of England.

I don't think that there were ever maore than half a dozen people between John Balliol and the crown of Scotland during his lifetime. After Margaret the Maid of Norway died, only chosing a different inheritance rule could keep John Balliol from the crown.

Robert the Bruce was always several places behind John Balliol.

[u/blamordeganis]

I know George I was 44th in the line of succession before succeeding Anne for being the most senior protestant in line

Second most senior Protestant. Frederica Mildmay was higher up the list, but got skipped for some reason.

[u/magolding22 → u/blamordeganis]

She was descended from a morgantic marriage, making her ineligible (even if male) to succeed to the Electorate of the Rhine, but eligible for the British throne, escept that the morgantic marriage was also considered by some to be bigamous, thus making the children of it illegitimate.

So a time traveler could, for some reason, go back in time and kill the first wife before the morganic marriage took place, thus making it a non bigamous marriage, and thus making Fredericca Mildmay Queen regnant of Great Britain.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Landgravine_Charlotte_of_Hesse-Kassel

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marie_Luise_von_Degenfeld

[u/blamordeganis → u/magolding22]

Thank you. Bigamous makes a lot more sense than morganatic.

[u/magolding22 → u/blamordeganis]

Of course the Elector Palatine was sort of the head of religion in his principality, so he claimed the authority to end his first marriaged whil ehis wife still lived..

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Landgravine_Charlotte_of_Hesse-Kassel

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marie_Luise_von_Degenfeld

Anyway, it is obvious that different people would have different ideas about the degreeof legitimacy of the children of the second marriage to Marie Luise von Degenfeld, and thus of their claim to the English throne..

Teh fact that Frederica Mildmay was married to an English Earl while Sophia was the wife and mohter of mighty Electors also made a difference.

[u/blamordeganis → u/magolding22]

So it was maybe less “this was definitely a bigamous marriage”, and more “there are at the very least questions about the validity of this marriage, let’s avoid the whole headache by skipping this line and going straight to Sophia and her descendants”?

[u/magolding22 → u/blamordeganis]

That is my opinion

In the debate over the Bill of Rights 1689, the House of Lords tried to make Sophia and her descendants named as heirs if William III, Mary II, and Anne failed to have surviving children, but that amendment didn't pass.

The Act of Settlment 1701 named Sophia and her descendants as the probable eventual heirs

And study of the debates over those 2 acts might shed light on why Frederica Schonberg Darcy Mildmay (1687-1751) and her mother Karoline (1659-1696) wer enot chosen as heirs.

[u/itstimegeez → u/blamordeganis]

The reason was that she was descended from Charles I Louis’ morganatic marriage to Marie Luise von Degenfeld. The UK succession back then was male preference primogeniture. All marriages had to be non morganatic under that system.

[u/blamordeganis → u/itstimegeez]

When has morganatic marriage ever been a thing in English or Scottish law?

[u/magolding22 → u/blamordeganis]

Never. The Morganic marriage was also considered to be bigamous, making the children of it illegitimate and thus not elibible to inherited the throne.

[u/magolding22 → u/itstimegeez]

Male preference primogeniture has nothing to do with whether children of morganic marriages can inherit. Englsih law never made a distinction between equal marriages and morgnic marriages. The children of any marriage were of legitimate birth and thus eligible for the british throne.

In this case Morganic marriage was also considered to be bigamous, making the children of it illegitimate and thus not elibible to inherited the British or any throne.

So a time traveler could, for some reason, go back in time and kill the first wife before the morganic marriage took place, thus making it a non bigamous marriage, and thus making Frederica Mildmay Queen regnant of Great Britain.

[u/D64ante]

Alfred the great should be mentioned here.

[u/xMannyxFreshx]

King John deserves a shout out I think 🤔

[u/Sea_Assistant_7583]

Stephen . The crown rightly belonged to Matilda . He took it from her as she was not present when Henry died .

[u/AidanHennessy → u/Sea_Assistant_7583]

Henry wasn't even the closest successor to the Conqueror until William Clito died in 1127.

[u/The_Falcon_Knight → u/Sea_Assistant_7583]

That's not the question. It's what their place in the succession was at birth. Stephen was a few years older than Matilda, so at the time of his birth, he was higher in the succession.

[u/Szaborovich9]

Prince Alexander of Battenberg. Son of a morganatic marriage ended up Crown Prince of Bulgaria. Had important relatives, but fell fast.

[u/The_Falcon_Knight]

Edward the Confessor was a 7th born son, so he was way down the line

[u/jhll2456]

Elizabeth I. Second daughter of Henry VIII from Anne Boleyn no less.

[u/Raincitygirl1029]

this doesn’t really count because it happened before he conquered England, but William the Conqueror was known as William the Bastard until 1066. He was the illegitimate son of Robert I, Duke of Normandy and his low-born mistress, a tanner’s daughter. William became Duke of Normandy after Robert’s death only because all of Robert’s legitimate children had predeceased him.

He did NOT care for the name William the Bastard, incidentally. Presumably that’s why, after his successful invasion of England, he wanted to be called William the Conqueror.

[u/guntherman73]

I think a notable mention is Lady Jane Grey. Following the succession Henry VII hoped for, it would’ve gone to Margaret and her kin but when Henry viii excluded her for his younger sister Mary, she went from 10+ or not on the list to number 5, then after Edward VI, heir apparent. She didn’t get to reign long but still jumped the line a bit

[u/Tough-Industry-2730]

Henry II, John, Bolingbroke/Henry V, Edward Iv, Richard III, Henry Tudor, William and Mary, Anne, Victoria, and George v and QEII.